balloot:That's not for you, or the US, to decide. The UN polices these things. If the UN wants to put together a coalition to take action in Syria, I can at least start to entertain the idea. But I've had enough of this world's policeman shiat.

For who to decide WHAT? Syria did that voluntarily in 1968 when they asked the Soviet Union to help them develop a chemical weapons program, which they openly maintained even AFTER the Soviet Union/Russia became signatories to the CWC.

hardinparamedic:JohnnyC: From what I understand, Infowars makes a decent bit of money peddling complete bullshiat to suckers who would like nothing more than for someone to feed them complete bullshiat.

Infowars is living proof that P.T. Barnum was correct. In all honesty, they push theories that even Coast to Coast AM wouldn't touch.

Biological Ali:Radioactive Ass: My point was that, if true, it opened the door and that door cannot be closed by time nor distance.

I'll give you points for creativity - this kind of thing would certainly be an interesting twist if this were a Tom Clancy novel.

In the real world, however, this just isn't a thing. Now, I don't know of it's been explicitly written into the Geneva convention or if it's just an international norm (I can't see any mention of it in the text), but the idea behind "respond in kind" exceptions is that, because weapons of mass destruction do give the user certain military advantages, the country they're being used against can reply in kind to negate that advantage rather than just rolling over. It certainly wouldn't cover somebody "retaliating" to a small-scale attack on a military target by launching an attack fifty times larger six months later, in a completely different city, targeted against civilian populations.

There's a reason why even Russia and Assad's regime, both of whom are accusing the rebels of carrying out the Aleppo incident, haven't made the argument that "Well, even if we did do it it would totally be okay because they started it". It's just not a thing.

Which circles back to my original point: IF the issue is the use of chemical weapons--and ONLY use of chemical weapons--then it should not matter who used them, or which incident triggered which response. If the US is getting involved because gas was used in violation of international law, then that should be sufficient. It should be irrelevant that "They used them, so we get to use some too," as a defense is being trotted out by either side, any more than a killer gets to say "He threatened me first!"...IF the rationale is to remove the means for using that particular objectionable weapon.

Either use of nerve gas is wrong--by either side, under any circumstances, even if "they used them first!"--and invites retaliation by the world at large; or it is not and does not, period. Because if there is some inkling that "Well, the rebels used gas, so it's only fair that the government should get a turn" or vice versa in some kind of good-for-the-goose scenario, then obviously the concern is NOT for the inherent horror and evil of the weapon itself, and the US (and the rest of the world) should shut up and let them fight. And if the concern is that the government using chemical weapons is bad and America can act, but if the rebels used them or some rogue general used them against orders then there's some moral ambiguity here and we can't act--then again, obviously the concern is NOT about the awfulness and evil of the weapons, and again, everyone should STFU and get out of the pool.

The only possible rationale--not that it's a good one, but the only possible one--for any attack on Syria is that chemical weapons have been used in violation of international law. That's one of the oldest international laws, and one that most countries have pretty much agreed to follow, even while we've bombed the living crap out of each other for the past century. So either we all agree to keep on doing that OR nerve agents are accepted as just another type of munition and we live with that specter; but if that's the red line Obama wants to draw, then it has to be drawn across everyone, government and insurgent alike.

It's not a good option, frankly; but that's the only reason I can see to even be thinking of intervening in Syria. Unless, as I've been saying, there's some third player in this game that we don't know about, that makes stepping on Syria absolutely imperative for some other reason besides that Assad gassed a few people to death.

TuteTibiImperes:Kit Fister: TuteTibiImperes: Mike_LowELL: Kit Fister: No one will care. This won't even get greened.

I hope it does. InfoWars infromes me like no other web site. If this headline gets downvoted, then it is proof that the NSA has gotten to the owner of this web site. There would be no other explanation.

FTFY

Oh. Its you again.

And you think Infowars has a shred of credibility? Who knows where that video actually came from.

Still, is it possible the rebels have chemicals weapons? Sure. Are all of the rebels using them, member of Al Qaeda, or even fighting for the same cause? No.

It's a mess over there, I honestly don't care at this point if we get involved or not, but let's not pretend there's some government conspiracy to subvert the public opinion. Your tinfoil hat might be on too snug.

We have government employees that are paid to subvert public opinion. Psychological Operations are usually carried out on foreign countries. Especially when it comes to war, they've got to sell this thing to the public and no one is buying anymore. They will probably go ahead anyways and see what happens.

Farking Alex Jones, man. You're more likely to get credible information from one of those plastic kids toy phones that make animal noises when you dial them

I know. I saw one in the store the other day, and one of the animals was a fricken' weasel. Cracked me up. So, I had to test it. It said "Obama is the anti-Christ, and he's declaring war against America." Weasels -- go figure.

Snark aside, does anyone actually have any disproof of the claims in the video and article?

I mean I know it's infowars, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

WTF are you DOING? ALWAYS attack the source of the information, and not the information, since our goals REQUIRE disinformation. Start dorking with the facts, and ANYTHING can come out. Just insult the source of the damning information as lunatics, and people will forget about it.

Mrtraveler01:According to the video tape, the rebels said: "I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL."

redsquid:Here's the real conspiracy theory- Alex Jones and his ilk are puppets for the system. They spout 99% gibberish and the ever so occasional nugget of truth. Look- no one looks for diamonds in the sewer. If someone told you there were diamonds under all the crap you wouldn't believe them. If a credible person told you about the diamonds, you would think they were gullible or stupid. All you've ever seen in the sewer is shiat and you will not believe anything to the contrary. The thing is that maybe the sewer is the best place of all to hide diamonds. Once a story has been tainted with the conspiracy label legitimate journalists will not touch it. It's not about control of the information itself. The only thing that matters is the public's perception of the information. That's the real Info War... if you believe that kind of thing. Us cool kids know that conspiracy stuff is all bullshiat. Right?

Yes, I've heard that one. Do you read ClubOrlov by any chance? He called it the "crank bait contract". I have no idea if it's true, but it sounds like something that would actually work - make sure that all the really damaging stories are revealed by obvious conspiracy nuts so that only a small % of people ever believe them.

Esn:redsquid: Here's the real conspiracy theory- Alex Jones and his ilk are puppets for the system. They spout 99% gibberish and the ever so occasional nugget of truth. Look- no one looks for diamonds in the sewer. If someone told you there were diamonds under all the crap you wouldn't believe them. If a credible person told you about the diamonds, you would think they were gullible or stupid. All you've ever seen in the sewer is shiat and you will not believe anything to the contrary. The thing is that maybe the sewer is the best place of all to hide diamonds. Once a story has been tainted with the conspiracy label legitimate journalists will not touch it. It's not about control of the information itself. The only thing that matters is the public's perception of the information. That's the real Info War... if you believe that kind of thing. Us cool kids know that conspiracy stuff is all bullshiat. Right?

Yes, I've heard that one. Do you read ClubOrlov by any chance? He called it the "crank bait contract". I have no idea if it's true, but it sounds like something that would actually work - make sure that all the really damaging stories are revealed by obvious conspiracy nuts so that only a small % of people ever believe them.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled off was convincing the world he didnt exist.

"The rebels we're funding in a bloody civil war are hooked up with the guys who kill Americans and vow to harm Americans on our own soil. That is a predicament. hmmmm. . . what should be done about this?

. . .

AHA!I know!

Sounds like some warrantless domestic wiretaps will fix that problem right up. I'll get right to work on it! I wonder what your Grandma Mabel is looking at on the internet. . . hmmmm *fap fap fap* It's a hard job but someone's gotta do it."

Commander Contwiggle:

"Good job Agent Boner! Glad to have people like you on board keeping us safe from Al Qaeda!"

Radioactive Ass:skullkrusher: the President has the authority to order strikes on Syria

No. He. Does. Not.

He himself has said, back in 2007 when Bush was contemplating bombing Iran, that the president has to go to congress if there is no immediate threat to the nation or right after the nation has been attacked. Neither of these things are true here therefor he had to go to congress. Libya was a slightly different situation because NATO was involved which allowed the bypassing of congressional approval due to treaty obligations. If NATO hadn't been involved and it was just us then yes, he would have had to run it through congress first.

Just because other previous presidents have abused this "Right" doesn't mean that it is legal. Know the difference. Cops let people off with a warning all of the time, that doesn't mean that you weren't breaking the law, it just means that they hope that the warning message was going to be effective. 1 MPH over the limit will get you a ticket if the cop wants to give it to you.

And in 2013 he said that he does have the authority. You gonna believe past Obama or present Obama?

Mrtraveler01: According to the video tape, the rebels said: "I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL."

Radioactive Ass:That aside this is truly a cold war comparison in light of what I said before. Once a type of weapon is used by one side when is the returned type of weapon supposed to be "Wrong"? In nuclear weapons we have a buffer of about 90 days which is the standard food duration of an SSBN. Where does it end in lesser conflicts where feeding the people shooting the weapons is more fluid?

As far as I can see, there is no official sanction for using chemical weapons under international law, even if it is in response to a similar attack by your enemy, at least not under the original Geneva protocol. The only thing is that many signatories "reserved the right" to retaliate "in kind" if such weapons were used against them. There are a few reasons why this wouldn't apply to the Damascus attack:

1 - It can't reasonably be termed a "retaliation" to the Aleppo incident. Not just because of how much later it happened, but because of where it took place and what kind of operation it was - it was part of a push to retake suburbs of Damascus that was completely unrelated to whatever fighting was going on in Aleppo.

2 - It's not even clear that it was an "in kind" response - it would be akin to responding to an isolated tactical nuke by launching dozens of missiles with massive payloads.

But even apart from that, the targeting of civilians would provide a separate justification for intervention even if you ignore everything else. That's what happened in Libya; the intervention came primarily in response to fears about further civilian casualties.

In short, there is nothing that can justify this attack, even if the rebels were behind the incident in Aleppo. Assad knows this, which is why he's continuing to make the laughable claim that the rebels were behind the Damascus attack as well, rather than merely writing it off as an "in kind retaliation".

skullkrusher:And in 2013 he said that he does have the authority. You gonna believe past Obama or present Obama?

If he does act by himself without Congressional authorization, it would open up the 60 day window after which he would have to either withdraw or seek authorization (or get into a legal challenge over the WPR). With Libya, it was obvious that this authorization wasn't needed due to treaty obligations, but the Syria thing might not involve a collective NATO response so that might not come into play.

It makes sense that he would want a more solid basis before going in, either through NATO or Congress, because two months isn't a very long time and the last thing he'd want is to start something and be forced to cut it short.

Biological Ali:In short, there is nothing that can justify this attack, even if the rebels were behind the incident in Aleppo. Assad knows this, which is why he's continuing to make the laughable claim that the rebels were behind the Damascus attack as well, rather than merely writing it off as an "in kind retaliation".

When both sides have used chemical weapons, you can't intervene on only one side of the conflict and claim your purpose is to stop the use of chemical weapons. You're not enforcing international law, you're using chemical weapons as an excuse to pick sides in a civil war. If chemical weapons were really the concern, the strikes would be on both Assad and the rebels' capacity to use chemical weapons.

Biological Ali:But even apart from that, the targeting of civilians would provide a separate justification for intervention even if you ignore everything else. That's what happened in Libya; the intervention came primarily in response to fears about further civilian casualties.

Humanitarian intervention is governed by Chapter VII of the UN Charter and explicitly requires a resolution from the UN Security Council. The fact that a member of the Council will veto your resolution does not change the requirements by which all member nations agreed to bind themselves.

Starting a war of humanitarian intervention without a UNSC Resolution is illegal. Showing pictures of victims on the news and feeling like we should "do something" doesn't change the law.

As we highlighted last week, Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta admitted to a reporter that they were responsible for last month's chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad's forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

But I thought the Right was telling us that these Chem Weapons were used by Assad's government, and that they got them from Iraq when Saddam "smuggled them out of the country"? NOW they're telling us that the guy who kissed Bush and held hands with him is the one providing the weapons? How does this justify the Iraq invasion now?

And seriously, if we're going to bomb ANYONE, it should be friggin' Saudi Arabia, they were the country that produced 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers, after all.

imontheinternet:When both sides have used chemical weapons, you can't intervene on only one side of the conflict and claim your purpose is to stop the use of chemical weapons. You're not enforcing international law, you're using chemical weapons as an excuse to pick sides in a civil war. If chemical weapons were really the concern, the strikes would be on both Assad and the rebels' capacity to use chemical weapons.

There is no realistic way to strike at the capacity of either side to carry out the kind of attack that happened in Aleppo because of how small-scale and isolated it was - that would entail targeting every piece of ordnance in the country (no matter how small).

On the other hand, there is a realistic way to limit the ability to carry out the kind of attack in Damascus, since it involved a coordinated large-scale rocket and artillery attack. Moreover, the Damascus attack was targeted at civilian areas while Aleppo involved mostly military casualties. It makes perfect sense that the latter would trigger international involvement while the former wouldn't, without obligating whoever intervenes to also attack the rebels just to maintain some weird sense of balance.

imontheinternet:Humanitarian intervention is governed by Chapter VII of the UN Charter and explicitly requires a resolution from the UN Security Council. The fact that a member of the Council will veto your resolution does not change the requirements by which all member nations agreed to bind themselves.

Starting a war of humanitarian intervention without a UNSC Resolution is illegal. Showing pictures of victims on the news and feeling like we should "do something" doesn't change the law.

Kosovo didn't have a UN resolution backing it before NATO intervened either. There's enough support (including regional support) that there won't be any major controversy if intervention does happen, and the UN will likely sanction peacekeeping forces after the fact just like it did with Kosovo.

Radioactive Ass:darth_badger: Saudi Arabia and Qatar funding the US to attack Syria. Sounds like war by proxy to me.

That sounds more like us being the biggest and baddest mercenary force in the history of all mankind. That might have an effect on enlistment and retention. You're going to have a hard time convincing people to go in or stay in if they think that the job isn't to fight for their country but instead to fight for whoever has the deepest pockets. Not at that paycheck size anyway.

Sadly the average 18 yr old kid singing up at the local mall is not going to care or even know about that.

Biological Ali:On the other hand, there is a realistic way to limit the ability to carry out the kind of attack in Damascus, since it involved a coordinated large-scale rocket and artillery attack. Moreover, the Damascus attack was targeted at civilian areas while Aleppo involved mostly military casualties. It makes perfect sense that the latter would trigger international involvement while the former wouldn't, without obligating whoever intervenes to also attack the rebels just to maintain some weird sense of balance.

If you're talking about how bad one attack was versus the other, you're going back to humanitarian intervention. If use of the weapons is a violation, both sides have violated the law.

Biological Ali: the UN will likely sanction peacekeeping forces after the fact.

They'll sanction the war because it's an illegal war. That's the exact point I'm making.

imontheinternet:Biological Ali: On the other hand, there is a realistic way to limit the ability to carry out the kind of attack in Damascus, since it involved a coordinated large-scale rocket and artillery attack. Moreover, the Damascus attack was targeted at civilian areas while Aleppo involved mostly military casualties. It makes perfect sense that the latter would trigger international involvement while the former wouldn't, without obligating whoever intervenes to also attack the rebels just to maintain some weird sense of balance.

If you're talking about how bad one attack was versus the other, you're going back to humanitarian intervention. If use of the weapons is a violation, both sides have violated the law.

Technically, the government did not violate any treaty they signed. The CW ban they signed referred to using CWs against other countries. It did not mention internal use. And obviously the rebels don't have UN representation, so they're not in a position to ratify any treaty.

imontheinternet:If you're talking about how bad one attack was versus the other, you're going back to humanitarian intervention. If use of the weapons is a violation, both sides have violated the law.

First of all, who was responsible for the Aleppo incident has yet to be positively established. It may never be positively established, given how much time has passed without a proper investigation taking place. But whoever you assume to be responsible, it doesn't make sense to carry out military intervention to prevent further things like that taking place, given that it was an isolated, small-scale incident affecting primarily military personnel. You can, on the other hand, severely limit the ability of Damascus-type attacks to be repeated by taking away Assad's ability to carry out these kinds of large artillery and rocket attacks.

imontheinternet:They'll sanction the war because it's an illegal war. That's the exact point I'm making.

I didn't mean "sanction" in that sense. I meant they'll send peacekeeping forces under their own banner (thus "sanctioning" their presence there) without saying anything about the initial intervention, just like they did with Kosovo.

skozlaw:JohnnyC: Your desire to make a 'clever' quip has been overcome by your inability to scan the thread.

So your theory is that "nice things" is people giving Drew clicks and eyes to encourage him to continue posting things people don't like?

That doesn't make much sense.

I guess it didn't occur to you that the point of this going green was to point out the absurdity of infowars and to discuss it.

If you're so against page clicks for Drew's website, what the fark are you doing here? You're starting to strike me as the kind of guy who would pay $4 for a 12oz. bottle of water at an anti-capitalism rally.

spamdog:Snark aside, does anyone actually have any disproof of the claims in the video and article?

I mean I know it's infowars, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

That's not how this works. ANYTHING put out by infowars would have a higher burden of proof due to the constant misinformation they spew. You don't get to say "well, you can't prove it's NOT true, therefore it's true" normally, and DEFINITELY not with this pathological liar schizophrenic.

Also, since after 300+ posts, I don't see any link to a corroborating source, I'mma call bullshiat. Not that there was much doubt about that...

GeneralJim:spamdog: Snark aside, does anyone actually have any disproof of the claims in the video and article?

I mean I know it's infowars, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.WTF are you DOING? ALWAYS attack the source of the information, and not the information, since our goals REQUIRE disinformation. Start dorking with the facts, and ANYTHING can come out. Just insult the source of the damning information as lunatics, and people will forget about it.Dammit, man, you have NOT been studying. Put in some reading time:[ridgeliner7.files.wordpress.com image 118x200]

That GeneralJim thinks Infowars is a credible source of information should come as no surprise to anyone who has been in a climate change thread.

About two days ago Infowars broke the story that you could get chemical weapons ingredients at Wal Mart (the substance they are talking about is the fluoride in dental products). Yes they are a reliable source, here's a quote:

Wal-Mart, Walgreens and other large U.S. retailers have been found selling a chemical that can be used to manufacture deadly nerve gas weapons. The chemical is found in numerous products sold by Wal-Mart and Walgreens, and it is the same chemical that raised alarm when it was discovered that UK companies had been granted licenses to sell the chemical to Syria, where it is now believed the chemical was turned into a deadly nerve gas weapon of mass destruction.

Valis992000:About two days ago Infowars broke the story that you could get chemical weapons ingredients at Wal Mart (the substance they are talking about is the fluoride in dental products). Yes they are a reliable source, here's a quote:

Wal-Mart, Walgreens and other large U.S. retailers have been found selling a chemical that can be used to manufacture deadly nerve gas weapons. The chemical is found in numerous products sold by Wal-Mart and Walgreens, and it is the same chemical that raised alarm when it was discovered that UK companies had been granted licenses to sell the chemical to Syria, where it is now believed the chemical was turned into a deadly nerve gas weapon of mass destruction.

FlashHarry:well, rush limbaugh sided with somali pirates over their american hostages in the maersk alabama hijacking, simply because he hates obama's guts - it shouldn't surprise me that alex jones and the rabid right would side with the butcher of damascus in this case.

So if you're against Al Qaeda affiliated rebels who murder women and children you're for Assad? I see.